Accountability in the Russo-Ukrainian war: Vladimir Putin versus NATO.

Abstract

This article showcases a discursive peace psychological analysis of Putin’s declaration of war and North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO’s) subsequent response to it. By treating psychological categories as action-bound and occasioned, rather than cognitive features residing inside the minds of individuals, the analysis shows three rhetorical strategies used by Putin and NATO to manage their accountability in the context of initiating hostilities. First, both sides describe the events in a way that combines the factual and moral reading of them that favor them. Second, continuity is rhetorically established to justify the actions of both factions as rooted in their preconflict status rather than being seen as reacting to the war. Finally, both sides use threats and exhortations for others to act in accordance with their wishes and demands. These three strategies showcase how both sides rhetorically manage their accountability, moral rightness and, at the same time, work up the moral guilt of their opponents. Similarity between the literature on expressions and denials of prejudice are found here, in the case of discursively sanitizing military action. This, more broadly, is a part of analyzing discursive violence in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war: how language can be used to justify or challenge violence.